Anyone who actually watched the debate should have come away very very scared. To think that Joe Biteeme could have his finger on the US nuclear Arsenal is beyond frightening. Its like watching some one form 1980 rather than 2012. He's lost all grasp of reality and Nov can't come soon enough

"It's awkward for anybody," CNN's John King said about Vice President Joe Biden putting blame on the intelligence community for Libya. "If you talk to people in the intelligence community and now at the State Department, they're not happy. They're not happy. The leaders of the administration, in their view, Jay Carney speaks for the President, so that's the President of the United States, the Vice President last night on stage, essentially publicly scolding, publicly blaming others for what happened in the administration. Those people don't like that."

I mean I understand not liking it when they make political points on it-- perfectly understandable-- but you know, when you fail at your job, you fail at your job. Saying "I don't like being criticized when I fail at my job" seems almost childish. If I told MY boss that, he'd probably laugh at me.

I'm fairly certain that ambassador might have preferred not to be violently killed like that, too, but there's not yet much we can do about that either.

To put the blame on 1) a video or 2) an intelligence report based on no information is just another example of the litany of lame excuses this administration comes up with. Biden's excuse that "we' did not know of the requests for more security is another example. It reminds us of Holder's excuse - he didn't know about the program run by people reporting directly to him allowing arms to flow across the border to the drug cartel.
Obama and Biden are in charge of this circus. When will they take responsibility for it?
The answer, of course, when apologists for this behavior, such as Melissa, demand that they take responsibility.

Debates have always been a boon to challengers because they can stand back and throw handfuls of rocks while the incumbent has to defend complicated gov't programs and try to reply to the attacks. Obama was disadvanted because he knows, as President, he has to be very careful of what he says. He seemed to be considering what he would say instead of making attacks. Ryan had an anecdote for every occasion and mostly jumped to whatever part of his stump speech he thought might fit. If these debates are supposed to show original thinking and some thinking on your feet, both challengers failed.

Wow. What is notable in most TE comment trails is how sophisticated the comments are compared to, e.g., those in Yahoo or other more pleb media. But bring on an election, and . . . . One would suspect the reptilian brain stem at work, but more likely is that formal and informal responders are lying in wait. Thankfully, decorum will raise its charming head again in a month or so, regardless of the election results, at least in this little bit of metaphorical England . . .

When respoding to the aortion issue, Biden responded that, regardless of his personal beliefs, he would not impose them on the rest of us. So, what gives him the right to impose his socialist beliefs on the rest of us?

First, in all seriousness, the separation of church and state is an important founding principle of our country. Whatever political philosophy one espouses.

Second, Mr. Biden has not advocated for the means of production and distribution being owned by the state. Nor has carried this out, despite your claim. I know the Republicans are deeply into the whole red scare thing right now, in honor of 80s flashback week or something, but there is objective reality to be dealt with.

Social libertarianism and economic authoritarianism is the left's grounding philosophy. It can be defensible but not on the grounds that Biden expressed. I have no right to tell a woman what she can do with her body but I have every right to tell the hospital to do as the woman wishes and make everyone pay for it?

Nope! Not "red.....just socialist! And, what is this "objective reality" you refer to? That the US is broke? That bigger Government is the only way out? That's what got us in to this pickle in the first place. An enlarging Government not willing to (and selectively) enforcing laws already on the books. Too much Government largesse simply encouraging more irresponsibility and dependence. And, yes...it did start to bloat under a Republican President.

I agree! A woman has responsibility for her own actions and her body, and I should not have to bear the responsibility to pay for a simply "unwanted" child! Rape, incest, and an endangered mother's life are no fault of the woman, and she should not be held responsible for it. I believe this latter part is what Ryan articulated to be his philosophy.

Boy, some people see socialists under every bed without actually knowing what a socialist looks like. And conflate socialists and communists. Most Western European countries have socialist programs in place (like universal health care) and they all have thriving private enterprises. They are not in conflict. True socialists would say that such animals are practically extinct in the US, while rabid
anti-fictitious socialism is thriving.

Excuse me, buddy! You have no clue whether I would know a socialist or not. I grew up in a country where all transportation, utilities, banks, hospitals, you name it....were run by the Government. I have experienced it first-hand, and for many years. Yes, I have seen socialists under every bed! And, this was in a "democracy"! Have you? Don't go off trying to lecture me about socialism, nor the mythical benefits thereof!

And of course that describes Obama and Biden to a tooth. They have advocated that the government take over hospitals,banks,
bus lines, the auto industry, the computer industry,etc. We are all aware that Obama has a secret plan to take over Apple and IBM.
That you have seen socialists under every bed does mean those beds were in the US. I have relatives in Rumania and visited that country under Ceasescu. I know what a hell communism was and believe me no politician in the US comes close to what existed there. There is zero chance for the US to follow that path. The problem in the US is the exact opposite, a unbelievable lack of social conscience among the newly rich and the propagation of 19th century myths about the poor being solely responsible for their fate (a very convenient myth for those that have more money than they know what to do with). This is a new phenomena, in the period 1950-1980 there used to be more concern about the well being of laborers and less about measuring one's worth by one's wealth.

I must add that you do not know the difference between a totalitarian communist state and a Social Democratic state.
You are confusing Scandinavian countries with Eastern European countries prior to the fall of the iron courtain.

Ryan is correct that Medicare needs to be reformed, but his party is the one that shut down all compromises with the Democrats over the budget. He'd rather cut back on food stamps and **** over the poor so that the rich can have their tax breaks. Ryan pursued a blatantly one-sided agenda and then blames the other side when there's no agreement. To borrow a phrase from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, there is no partner for peace on the other side.

apparently your memeory is short, what was bipartisan about the ACA? There was no agreement because there was no discussion or seat at the table for Republicans.. Nancy P said "We have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it." We now know it costlier than the president indicated on his pitch tour.

If you want to give Obama/Biden another chance that's all you, just rememeber this quote from Obama, "there’s no such thing as shovel-ready projects" yet this was the presmise for job growth and lowering the unemployment rate. We now had 3 such stimulus..There are no more cleaver levers for the Fed to pull. So other than drastic cuts in spending, raising taxes, and reducing the size of government how can the dems pay for all their programs?

Ohoho. There was a whole year of discussion in the Senate where blue dog Democrats were bending over backwards to get at least a few Republican senators to sign on to ACA. Grassley at one point seem to agree to a compromise only to reject it a few days later.
The public option, strongly favored by a majority of Democrats, was tabled knowing that sixty votes were impossible in that case. That ACA was passed with no Republicans at the table because they refused to be there. That the GOP is uninterested in any compromise has been demonstrated over and over during the last 4 years. Republican administration have never faced the same kind of stubborn unwillingness to compromise from Democrats in Congress.

No matter what Democrats did, the Republican goalposts on the ACA moved. They were never going to agree to a bill, even if it was eventually watered down to be just an affirmation that motherhood and apple pie are good.

(See Romney on that bipartisan plan, it was great, everyone would have gone with that! this week, when that bipartisan plan featured the same mandate that is supposedly the litmus test of evil.)

Another example of a short memory. Ryan's Medicare reform program WAS a bipartisan effort, co-sponsored by Democrats. But the Democrat leadership screamed so much about their lack of loyalty to the party that they withdrew their support.

We were on the brink of a banking collapse and the Dems chose this time to put forth a new healthcare initiative to replace a system that didnt need replacement..

"Republican administration have never faced the same kind of stubborn unwillingness to compromise from Democrats in Congress." How about the last 2 years? There's been on bipartisan support on anything that would move the ball forward.

Just stating emphatically that the Democrats refuse to compromise does not make it true. Obama did offer a compromise to Boehner that required raising taxes on high incomes. Boehner was ready to accept it until the rabid Tea Party members almost lynched him.
There were many conservatives at the time who stated unequivocally that was the best deal Republicans had been offered since 2009. As long as Republicans insist taxes cannot be raised on the wealthy no compromise is possible for taming the budget deficit. Any Democrat signing on adding burdens to the majority to increase the wealth of a tiny minority will not survive in his district. Tea Party types idea of a compromise is getting what they demand and being praised for willing to accept that. Before stating who is unwilling to compromise give me an example of an honest proposal from Republicans that was rejected by Democrats.

Another falsehood from Serban - just as much a lie as the denial that Ron Wyden was a collaborator with Ryan on his Medicare reform program. The recent book by Woodward details how Boehner and Obama agreed to a compromise which included a tax increase of almost $1T. Then Obama reneged and raised the ante to an additional $0.4T. Boehner angry, pulled out of the deal.

Obama screwed up the deal, and the Democrats blamed it on the Tea Party.

Wyden tried to work with Ryan (which is by itself commendable)
assuming a reasonable discussion will come out of it. He gave up in disgust later (as the link you provided makes clear). The plan presented by Ryan in his budget did not reflect what Wyden thought they had agreed on.

"But for some Democrats, Wyden’s willingness to join Ryan in arguing that “a model driven by choices and competition” will work and “makes some of the old discussion potentially irrelevant” – is, at best, a kind of off-message dissonance and at worst a form of heresy."

The Weakest Vice President candidate in recent memory is Sarah Palin.
Even die hard Republicans acknowledge in retrospect that she was a unvetted, unqualified, unmitigated disaster in Designer Glasses.
(The Glasses were more sophisticated than she could ever hope to be.)

She was such a catastrophe, this past Summer at the Republican Convention in Tampa, security guards were instructed to detain and prevent her from entering the building. She was a walking Ebola Virus.

And just 4 years ago she was the star of the show!

Cinderella's carriage returned to rotten pumpkin.

And Palin is a hated and despised figure in Republican circles.
______________________________

Sarah Palin taught observers a valuable political lesson.

IF you put a rabid dog--or an incompetent, sass-mouthed Alaskan-- on the Republican National Ticket,

=> THEN the majority of Registered Republicans will AUTOMATICALLY VOTE the party line. --NO QUESTIONS ASKED.
______________________________

Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney may make impossible promises, lie like the Devil, snort half of Columbia, and have four wive harems--and still command the Republican faithful.

Yes, you voted for Sarah Palin! Admit it!
And you would vote for a dog like Newt Gingrich in a heartbeat if he made the ticket.
And you will vote for Ryan even if he turns out to be a Cannibal Zombie Vampire.
Or Lucifer's Chosen AntiChrist.
_______________________________
We have to be prepared to admit mistakes. Learn from them. And move on.

For many Republicans, they have a repressed memory block-amnesia about the whole-Sarah-Thingy.
______________________________

Am appropriate response to these lame attempts to divert attention from Biden is to ignore them. Sarah Palin was a candidate four years ago, connect. Try to stay on the subject at hand - the lame candidate we have running for VP today - Joe Biden.

"I think on Afghanistan, Paul Ryan mounted a spirited attack on the Obama administration's position to leave in 2014, come what may"

Are you sure you're not just imposing the economist's view (that the US should stay, come what may) here?

Far from mounting a 'spirited attack', I saw Ryan repeat several times that they agree with the 2014 withdraw date, but just quibble with setting a date the Taliban can set on a calendar. But, Ryan seemed at pains to avoid any insinuation that a Romney admin would escalate or prolong the war in Afghanistan. This is wise considering the war has gone from unpopular to toxic with the American people in the wake of more than 50 soldiers killed in green-on-blue attacks.

The trouble with parts of this assessment (and with other bits of The Economist coverage of the election) is that you take Republican half-truths and outright lies at face value.
When you talk about a clear choice between different visions for America, you forget that the candidate representing one of these clear choices (Mitt Romney) is someone who blatantly lies and "evolves" on matters big and small to suit the current tastes of the voters and/or donors of the day. Never mind that this clear vision doesn't provide hard and coherent numbers on what taxes/spending programmes would be cut (notwithstanding the inappropriately ridiculous Big Bird joke), other than a hard pledge to increase military spending to 4%. So how can you take seriously such important propositions---and thus put your journal's weight behind his assertions---from a serial and publicly convicted liar who stays evasive on _how_ he would actually do it?
And you tend to forget a bit of history: George W. Bush. At the time The Economist put its weight behind this candidate as he also ran on demagogic small-government pledges only to increase government when in office (and charge two wars on a credit card). Having made this error once, how can you seriously consider such propositions coming from the same clan, but this time from a serial "evolver"?
I believe that this important uncertainty inherent to Mitt Romney's positions and pledges is insufficiently considered in The Economist analyses of the candidate.

The trouble with most of your assessment is you seem to take all the rhetorical games played by either side's communications teams at face value. Politicians operate using proven, focus-grouped talking points that appeal to people without much thought needed. It amazes me that people expect otherwise. Our population does not pay enough attention to politics for it to be anything but thus.

Absolutely in agreement,
That's why we have this par of clowns as President and (creepy) VP.
But no follower will ever question the wisdom of our "Great Lider".
The only good think this time is that the American people is NOT FOLLOWERS, and soon the free minded people will change the status quo.
Crazy ancle Joe was soo creepy that Obama looks now much better.......!!!
Unfortunately for him this is not good enough ...............!!!

There's a difference between saying "I don't like abortion", which many people will agree with, and "I want to force a woman and her unborn child to both die because I don't want her to have an abortion even when complications threaten the life of both mother and child", which is the Republican party standpoint, along with the standpoint of many theocratic nations across the world.

Considering that many-- if not most-- pro-choice supporters themselves do not like abortion, it's far more complicated an issue than someone like you would likely ever be willing to admit. I don't encourage people to have abortions, but the choice is there, if the mother decides that she needs such a drastic option.

The Romney administration have made it abundantly clear that they would not outlaw abortion in the case of rape, incest and health of the mother. They have also made it clear that they would not condone, as Obama does,the crushing of a full term baby's skull in partial birth abortions.

You are one pretty disgusting specimen with your blatant lies. Did you learn that on your mother's hip with lots of coaching?

I am deeply amused that you are certain of Romney's position on abortion, no matter how it has scuttled about this week. (I prefer to believe Mr. Romney is secretly slightly left of Dennis Kucinich on most issues, a February surprise should he be elected.) But so long as he is not willing to explicitly spell out his difference from the party platform, people are perfectly entitled to assume it has some meaning--and it does not even allow saving the life of the mother.

No one is aborting full-term babies. No one. There are very very rare third trimester abortions, for fairly horrific health conditions. If you want a "not a good time to raise a child" abortion you are expected to obtain one in the first trimester, when the nervous system is not hooked up.

1% of the total are after 21 weeks. (And having had two full-term pregnancies, I am highly dubious of calling this "viable." It is however where the CDC draws a line in the numbers they're reporting. They do not call it viable.)

When those opposed to abortion combine that with a dedication to making sure contraception is free and readily available as a sensible social program to reduce unwanted pregnancies--something shown to reduce rates of abortion by 80% in the last study I saw on it--I'll listen to their words about the dear little babies they're so worried about. So far it seems to be more about bearing your shame.

No. Rape is not linked to a rapist's desire to have sex, but being short the $5 or $20 or whatever that your low-end prostitutes charge. In fact, I've never heard of this defense being tried even once.

I was inspired to go look up some statistics. The reason, overwhelmingly, for abortions in the third trimester is something very seriously wrong with the fetus. Sometimes the parents learn this in the third trimester. Sometimes they had inconclusive tests early on and decided to wait and hope the tests were wrong, or the problem was on the mild end of the spectrum.

I looked up anencephaly, since that is my personal test case of a pregnancy in which I'm pretty sure I would opt for abortion. If anyone doesn't know exactly what an infant born with anencephaly looks like, go google image it right now. It is a neural tube defect in which the skull is open and the brain all or partially missing. Usually the mother miscarries, but some go to the third trimester, when it is usually diagnosed.

4 million births a year. A little over 1 in 5000 will have anencephaly. (3/4 of those die at birth or are stillborn, but a few hold on a few hours.) Over 90% of mothers learning they are carrying an anencephalic child choose to abort. Running those numbers, I get over 7000 abortions a year of anencephalic fetuses.

It's hard to make a human. A lot of things can go wrong in the genetic code, or in fetal development. That it's really unpleasant to think about God or Nature or what have you being cool with thousands and thousands of anencephaly cases a year does not make them vanish into happy thoughts land.

People say they're opposed to third trimester abortion when it's presented as a convenience issue. "Oh gosh I changed my mind about this 7 month perfectly healthy fetus." You can't actually get an abortion in those cases. Ask them about the specific conditions actual women have to face, and they are in favor. Especially if it was them, or their family.

There is a very strong difference between hiring a prostitute and buying a birth control pill or condom. The fact that you conflate the two does not add any credence whatsoever to your point, if indeed you had one.

You've been drinking too deeply of the Kool-Aid, and are clearly someone who wouldn't vote for anyone other than a Democrat....no matter what! I am a Republican who has, on accasion, voted for a Democrat. You and I cannot make a stronger case for the fact that Republicans are more open-monded than Democrats! Arguing the abortion issue with you is fruitless! You clearly believe that a woman should be able to have complete control over her body, no matter how many abortions she seeks, and no matter what her reasons. I seek to inject complete responsibility. If a woman wants to be responsible for her body...I'm all for it! But, by gosh...then, be responsible, and act responsibly!